Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already signal destructive intent and idempotency, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: the requirement for user authorization, the need for a stable idempotency_key, and the recovery behavior after an uncertain response. It does not dwell on return behavior, but the output schema covers that.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the most important precondition. The second sentence earns its place by clarifying recovery behavior. Some phrasing is dense and slightly awkward, but it is not padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with four required parameters, the description covers the critical workflow around authorization, idempotency, and uncertain responses. It does not explain where checkout_id comes from or spell out the confirmation object's role beyond terms_hash, though the schema partially fills that gap. Overall it is workable but not fully complete for an agent without additional flow context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description helps by explaining the role of terms_hash, validation_token, and idempotency_key in the flow. However, it does not mention checkout_id or the confirmed flag in the confirmation object, leaving part of the parameter surface under-explained. It adds meaningful value, but not enough to fully compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description makes clear this tool commits an order once a review and terms authorization are in place, rather than merely inspecting or validating. It does not explicitly say 'create order,' but the name, title, and commit language convey the action. It also indirectly distinguishes itself from get_order by positioning itself as the commit step.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit preconditions: only after presenting the review and obtaining authorization for its terms_hash. It also provides an alternative path for ambiguous outcomes, instructing the agent to call get_order first and not blindly resubmit. This is strong when-to-use and when-not-to-resubmit guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.